SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—The gargantuan Apple v. Samsung trial isn't just about Apple's claims that Samsung copied its flagship products. After it was sued, Samsung used its own patents to go after Apple, and the San Jose jury will soon issue a verdict on both sides' claims.

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

The Korean electronics giant claims to have one patent that covers multi-tasking while playing music (No. 7,698,711); another that covers "bookmarking" the last-viewed photo in a smartphone for easy retrieval (7,456,893); and even one that the company says covers sending an e-mail with a photo attached (7,577,460).

A Samsung expert witness, Harvard Professor Woodward Yang, walked the jury through the claims of the patents he said were infringed by Apple products like the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2, and the 4th-generation iPod touch. Yang, who was paid $550 an hour for his work on the case, described each claim in simple terms, and narrated along as videos on the slide showed a demonstration of how each patent was used by Apple products.

"You're looking at a picture, and if you go to do another function—you've lost your place," said Yang, describing the '893 patent. "The idea was, let's have a bookmark."

A video played for the jury, showing a screen split four ways: iPhones and an iPad all viewed a vacation photo, then took a photo of an orange. After going back to the photo gallery, the vacation photo came up immediately.

"That's very convenient," explained Yang. "Without this invention, you'd now be looking at the picture of the orange."

(The iPhone 3G wasn't accused on that particular patent, since the feature was added later.)

Later, Yang walked through Samsung's music-multitasking patent. A video showed a user picking a song, then going back to e-mail and other applications.

"I could be reviewing my mail while I'm listening to Bruce Springsteen," said Yang.

The features on display in the three patents were only added to the iPhone after they were patented by Samsung, the company's lawyers alleged.

On cross-exam, Apple's lawyer, Bill Lee, didn't challenge the Samsung patents directly. Instead, he suggested that Apple's devices don't meet terminology found in the patents, like a "silent mode." He also noted that Yang has made about $200,000 working on this lawsuit, and a similar amount in a lawsuit involving Nokia.

The Samsung counter-attack isn't over; in addition to the user-interface patents that Yang testified on, the Korean company has patents it says cover the 3G wireless standard that Apple is infringing.

Making a case for damages on specific user-interface features can be wildly speculative. An Apple expert in this case believes that the patents involved in this case add $90 per smartphone. In a smartphone trial scheduled to start earlier this year, Apple v. Motorola, the judge overseeing the case deemed the damages arguments so weak he canceled the trial altogether.

The way the jury will see a strategy like Samsung's is hard to predict. Patent counter-attacks can be seen as vindictive, or they can convince a jury that both sides' claims have a kind of parity, with each having important intellectual property.

Testimony continued in the afternoon, with a Samsung designer named Jeeyeun Wang taking the stand.

216 Reader Comments

What we DO have is brand loyalty out the fucking wazoo. When I see someone complaining about 'copying' it absolutely means that they support Apple. That's it. In any other context, that person doesn't give a rats ass about 'copying', IP, or anything else.

And I was so enjoying your post up to this point. If you lack integrity in your personal life, I would encourage you to acknowledge that as a personal failing of your own. Those are astute points you make against absurd sweeping generalisations.

touche. But I'll be damned if I can remember an instance where in these forums I read complaints about 'copying' (that specific word) that wasn't in the context of Apple's lawsuits and wasn't by an Apple supporter. I honestly don't think that the Ars commentariat valued that issue at all except in that brand-specific context (and possibly a few old-timers who still support music copyrights, but those seem to have died out recently to the torrent of 'shill' accusations).

Honestly, my integrity aside, I'm intellectually fascinated by the tides of opinion on this place, and why Arsians seem to support diametrically opposed things when brands become involved. Because cognitive dissonance I suppose.

well, whenever you acknowledge the existence of ogg/vorbis apple, then we will talk. until then, go bleep yourself.

I'm flattered. You took all the time to make yourself look like such a dumbass.

Why don't you ask my friend back in late 2009 what computer I was going to buy? Oh wait, you can't. Oh I know! Why don't you go to appleinsider and look at my posts there? You can even see me rooting for them before realizing how fucking stupid those posters can be, especially on the webm/html5 "debacle".

Apple was on a roll, making good products that appealed to my like of integration and simplicity, and whether or not it supported vorbis was becoming less and less of an issue.

Everytime I have an inkling to buy an apple product, apple themselves shoots that want down with stupid, pointless bullshit. And Google voice was the final straw. Coupled with their reputation to remove apps at will, I could not confidently rely on such a flaky platform where apps are they for months then pulled indefinitely.

Play the psychiatrist on someone else; you suck.

Quote:

A bit of doubling down on the bullshit, too, that you cite as a turning point an FCC investigation into Apple/AT&T practices, a “probe” which ended in exactly zero sanctions against Apple. This “probe” was into Apple and AT&T over a Google service that competed against Apple exactly in no way, shape or form. Apple was utterly disingenuous in taking the bullet for protecting AT&T's tariffs, but that would be consistent with all the other issues Apple haters liked to cite, and Verizon exploited, such as the ban on tethering. Right, Apple would just hate, hate, hate for people to like their equipment.

You really think it was Att when they went on record, SPECIFICALLY stating they had no control on what went into the app store? You realize that argument makes no sense since Google voice relies on actual phone minutes? Or the fact that no ban on GV was made on any att android phones? You also want to explain why apple went on record stating, "We did not ban Google voice, we are still studying/evaluating it"? And the only reason why the FTC didn't fine them or go beyond a probe is because they relented and let back in Google voice and Adobe's flash tools after 13 months.

Quote:

For the trifecta, you make this pronouncement within a week of the FTC sanctioning Google a *record* $22.5 million for abusing iPhone customers' privacy. So you are quite happy to turn a blind eye to actions by a firm that illegally violates customers' privacy, and trade that against a list of controversies that collectively add up to less than a bucket of spittle.

Whoppy shit. Webkit has a feature request to make 3rd party cookies work better, creates the problem, and a Chromium developer submits a patch to fix it and is ignored for months. If anyone should pay that fine it is apple for being incompetent retards.

Quote:

This case is about the failure of normal commercial agreements, and the courts having to step in, in a very non-Libertarian, non-free-market way, to protect citizens' interests in having a rule of law and fair competition as defined by those laws. You trivialize those concerns by spouting tired rhetoric that is more fitting for playground arguments.

WTF? This case is about apple complaining that samsung "copied" their icons, layout, etc. If Samsung is guilty I don't care; I'm on record as not liking "TouchWiz" because it looked too similar to the iphone. Whether or not apple deserves anything near 2.8 billion is the question. They are quite deluded if they think they deserve 100% of profits generated plus fines and more.

Got anything else stupid to say? Cause I'll chew you up and spit you to the curb every time you bring it.

An Apple expert in this case believes that the patents involved in this case add $90 per smartphone.

Ah, such comedy! That gave me my laugh for the day.

Though the majority of these patents should be incinerated, it would also be hilarious to see Samsung cleared of patent infringement and Apple hit with a massive fine. $2.88 billion sounds about right.

At some point, public headshaking at the absurdity of these patent cases, an ambitious young member of Congress who needs a high-profile issue, and a company with a lot of money and interest in broad-based patent reform (e.g. Google) are going to get together and push through patent reform. I think we've nearly reached the point of critical mass...

I think this qualifies for the Misguided Idealist Award of the thread.

It has long been in Google's program to make it seem like patent cases are simply mud-slinging, unfair bases for competition. They repeat the line often.

But that merely makes it more obvious as propaganda; it doesn't make it true. We have had disputes over patents for centuries. (Consider that virtually ALL of our most famous inventors, e.g., the Wright Brothers, got entangled in trying to protect their innovations.) And every couple of years, “patent reform” makes it thru Congress. Last year's reforms (and let's think of re-forming the law, not making it necessarily better) utterly ignored these issues: partly, they're merely Google PR; partly, the reforms some call for would vastly shift around wealth, incentives and possibly have hugely unintended side effects. Each time, we go back to where we started: the courts are the preferred venue for working out these types of disputes.

Most of us are used to dealing with complicated systems — maybe thousands of APIs, hundreds of servers working together, whatever. US law has been accumulating precedent and cruft for two and a half centuries since the last major rewrite, and even that includes bits of code from almost 1000 years ago. We have over 1800 Federal judges writing opinions that get cited, plus over 500 lawmakers plus their staffs writing huge bills, most stuffed with various special provisions. We in technology should stand in awe of the idea that it can work at all.

I won't say it's in any way ideal, but the notion that somehow a majority of Congress would go on a crusade to get 2/3 of the states to amend the Constitutional provision for patents, and then leave a big vacuum behind that would favor assassinations and private armies instead of court cases, seems more than a little far-fetched.

Oops! Not just your spittle. Your buddy @workaround deserves a bit of credit, for those shotgun attempts at character assassination. He was so interested in finding dirt, and you were so happy to repeat it, that you both cite an article where an utterly independent supplier to Apple stole confidential information from Apple and sold it. Apple, obviously, had no part in promoting wrongdoing of the “Bribery!!!” article that you link/cite, yet that somehow qualifies as good enough for your foul standards of anti-Apple spew. Really, why such a hurry to throw shit at the fan, when you've had years to properly catalogue their actions?

He's my buddy huh? That's like the first time I've quoted him. Please.

Oh, one article of many, that makes apple soooooo much better. I'm willing to bet Goooooooogle came up with millions of repetitive links, just as what comes up if you type in google skyhook or google MS complaints.

Funny, some of those samsung links earlier were also repeats of each other. Guess what? I can't say one way or another on them, nor attempted to. Guess I'm not such a rabid fanboi.

Quote:

It has long been in Google's program to make it seem like patent cases are simply mud-slinging, unfair bases for competition. They repeat the line often.

Only in your head. Maybe you better keep up on those issues before making yourself look bad by thinking its only Google who wants change.

You probably think you are funny. How about those Vizio TV sets - a clear rip off of Samsung TV sets?Americans Rip off KoreansEuropeans ... those stopped producing anything two decades ago.

Ever lived there?I have, worked there and every third shop was a ripoff of something

You should take your own advice and travel even more than you think you do.And if you already do, at least stop being a victim of your own confirmation bias.

I've traveled to almost every country in Europe, half the states in the US, some South American countries, and the major countries in Asia.

Just off the top of my head, in NY, Rome, Tokyo, etc, you'll see a plethora of stores on the streets selling rip offs. Does that mean that the whole country's culture is based on copying?

In the US, Korea, and Japan, you can surely point to certain sectors of the country where they sell rip offs, but if you look at the whole, which is the part that matters, there's a lot of innovation going on.

Plus, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but Japan heavily copied Europe and America to get to where they are.

But as a businessman, I've witnessed only one country in the entire world that has a rampant copying problem when you look at both the small and whole scale, and that's China.

Seems to me everything can be patented these days. It was intended for innovation and creativity. Now it is used mostly for big companies to eliminate competitions. We seriously need reform patent policy.

I agree that reform is needed but you have to realize that the same people that get all of our laws passed and regulations written are bought by these same corporations. What kind of patent reform, or any reform, are we really going to get?

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

Who knows.. Perhaps Samsung didn't think that they were important enough to disrupt consumer choice till they saw what they felt was even more frivolous patents being claimed by Apple.

EDIT: As for Samsung's patents, they boil down to doing stuff that's common on the desktop, except now on a phone (thanks to the hardware finally reaching the point that it can support returning to your previous spot when you reopen an application, basic multitasking, and e-mail attachments)

By that argument any prior art that is found for desktops should be compared with Apple's patents also.

The problem with this case is simple. Apple stooped low to bring it, Samsung have to stoop low to defend against it.

Neither side's case is particularly compelling. Most of Apple's claimed innovations are trivial to find prior are for, and the rest of their case is an insulting attempt to get exclusivity on minimalism. Samsung's defence is pretty much a mirror image of that claim.

Neither deserves to win. But if I have to pick a winner, I'd pick Samsung - simply because Apple's preference for competing with lawyers rather than products leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

As far as I'm concerned, they are both misusing patents to hinder competition.

Perhaps, but I don't recall any one hearing Apple was filing injunctions in response to Samsung filing any first. Seems Steve's legacy will be remembered as the anger that hobbled Apple.

The problem with the 3g patents is Apple seems to believe that FRAND stands for FRee if Apple Needs it for Devices.

Normally the people that manufacture the chip pay the patent fee for implementing it in their chip. This price is paid for when you purchase the chip. No-one buys a chip and then pays for the patent later, that would be stupid and the chips would be a violation of the patent.

Perhaps the patents cover some software portion of 3G that Apple implemented in their OS for which they have not yet paid anything for. Most likely because they were not aware of it. Unfortunately ignorance will not give them a pass for paying when finally billed.

I wish Samsung would stop selling components to Apple outright, businesses aren't often vindictive enough for my liking. It's not practical, I know, but it sure does feel good.

The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind since Samsung may have made more money on the iPhone than Android. Would it feel good if Apple dropped Samsung?

That may have been true in the recent past but with the volume of smartphones Samsung sells worldwide (about 4x what Apple sells last I saw) and the MUCH larger margins on smartphones compared to components (Ask Apple if you have any doubt) I'm sure Apple would be hurt more than Samsung should they decide to go with another supplier.

You probably think you are funny. How about those Vizio TV sets - a clear rip off of Samsung TV sets?Americans Rip off KoreansEuropeans ... those stopped producing anything two decades ago.

Ever lived there?I have, worked there and every third shop was a ripoff of something

You should take your own advice and travel even more than you think you do.And if you already do, at least stop being a victim of your own confirmation bias.

I've traveled to almost every country in Europe, half the states in the US, some South American countries, and the major countries in Asia.

Just off the top of my head, in NY, Rome, Tokyo, etc, you'll see a plethora of stores on the streets selling rip offs. Does that mean that the whole country's culture is based on copying?

In the US, Korea, and Japan, you can surely point to certain sectors of the country where they sell rip offs, but if you look at the whole, which is the part that matters, there's a lot of innovation going on. Plus, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but Japan copied Europe and America to get to where they are.

But as a businessman, I've witnessed only one country in the entire world that has a rampant copying problem when you look at both the small and whole scale, and that's China.

I lived and worked in Korea and covered a lot of it. The DoD warned its employees almost monthly that we were not to purchase and ship knockoff goods back to the states. It was rampant, and legal as the shops were not in some seedy NY neighborhood in some back room, but in the wide open. Mod shops selling pirated Japanese console games, with hardware mods on the spot. Knockoff clothing from Italian purses, to American jeans, All blatantly in the open.

That doesn't mean that copying doesn't go on here, but there it is wide open and legal with no pretension as to what it really is. It's ingrained in the culture there, just as in China. They will only begin to take it seriously when they realize the value of protecting their own brands and innovations. Being part of the world community will hopefully help citizens of every country to realize the value of their brands and goods that are unique to their own communities. This will allow for truly free trade.....

Korean is not a race, and stating that some Asian countries don't view copying the same as the Western countries, is just stating the obvious.

Try traveling, its eye opening

I always got a kick out of visiting my friends in Hawaii. They'd take me to Hawaiian barbeque, and such, and I'd be like, this looks/tastes just like Korean BBQ (Kalbi), and they'd be like, "No man, this is Hawaiian bbq.. Here, try some of this Hawaiian fried rice", and I'd be like, "Dude, this is Korean Omelette-Rice", and they'd be like, "No way man, this is Hawaiian."

Koreans aren't the only ones that "copy"... It's rooted in lots of cultures. Japanese Sukiyaki looks a lot like Chinese Huo Guo. And the Japanese thing of dipping your food in a raw egg? That's a very Taiwanese thing to do.

Well Korean food is second to none in my book, and I was ever so sad, that one of my favorite yakiniku places shut down recently.... Have to find a new place to hit the bulgogi

Today Samsung unleashed its counterattack, putting an expert on the stand that accused Apple of infringing three patents with incredibly wide-ranging claims to basic smartphone functions.

What's the point of this "defense"? If Samsung believes Apple is infringing on these patents, why haven't they filed a countersuit using them?? Surely Samsung management are not so stupid as to have sat on patents that could be used in a countersuit?

The best outcome would be if both attacks were thrown out. Patenting at this level is absurd and stifles small independent developers. Most large companies don't sue each other and share patent portfolios. Only Apple is this litigious. If the outcome is cutting back the range of patentable designs to something a bit more reasonable, that would be a great outcome. Either side winning anything, not.

You should take your own advice and travel even more than you think you do.And if you already do, at least stop being a victim of your own confirmation bias.

I've traveled to almost every country in Europe, half the states in the US, some South American countries, and the major countries in Asia.

Just off the top of my head, in NY, Rome, Tokyo, etc, you'll see a plethora of stores on the streets selling rip offs. Does that mean that the whole country's culture is based on copying?

In the US, Korea, and Japan, you can surely point to certain sectors of the country where they sell rip offs, but if you look at the whole, which is the part that matters, there's a lot of innovation going on. Plus, I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but Japan copied Europe and America to get to where they are.

But as a businessman, I've witnessed only one country in the entire world that has a rampant copying problem when you look at both the small and whole scale, and that's China.

I lived and worked in Korea and covered a lot of it. The DoD warned its employees almost monthly that we were not to purchase and ship knockoff goods back to the states. It was rampant, and legal as the shops were not in some seedy NY neighborhood in some back room, but in the wide open. Mod shops selling pirated Japanese console games, with hardware mods on the spot. Knockoff clothing from Italian purses, to American jeans, All blatantly in the open.

It is out in the open, but like I said only in certain sectors, just as it is the case in the US or Japan or Italy or Germany or Russia or even certain parts of France. It certainly is not like how you're trying to portray it, where every third shop is like this.

There's a difference between little corner stores or stands that sell cheaper imitation items in a different market from the original products where every buyer completely knows they're buying a knock off, versus a large official company that tries to sell imitations in the original market it's copying from.

That's again the difference between the small and large scale concept I referred to above, and the difference between countries like the US, Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, etc versus countries like China.

I respect that you have a lot of experience in this, but you're forgetting most of the rest of the world is like this.

You had better work on that memory of yours; it seems to be failing you.

On March 6, 2007, about 2 years before the Google Voice issue arose, sprockkets wrote:

well, whenever you acknowledge the existence of ogg/vorbis apple, then we will talk. until then, go bleep yourself.

Seems like your hatred and insults to Apple is pretty deep-seated, probably there are several key moments in that history that broke your camel's back. Ars lists 1142 posts you've made that include “Apple” (I cited only the first one) and I didn't see a single one where you had anything other than bile for them.

You know, it's one thing to have a position about what you like/dislike, but disguising it with phony citations is not very inspiring that you're being forthcoming about your reasoning.

A bit of doubling down on the bullshit, too, that you cite as a turning point an FCC investigation into Apple/AT&T practices, a “probe” which ended in exactly zero sanctions against either. The FCC looked into Apple supposedly denying a Google service that competed against Apple — but did so in exactly no way, shape or form. After Google Voice came to the iPhone, it seemingly had thunderously tiny impact, AFAICT, suggesting that it was a Google complaint, rather than actual consumer interest, at stake. Apple was utterly disingenuous in taking the bullet for protecting AT&T's tariffs, but that would be consistent with all the other issues Apple haters liked to cite, and Verizon exploited, such as the ban on tethering. Right, Apple would just hate, hate, hate for people to like their equipment, or to be able to make phone calls that Apple got zero revenues from, whether AT&T's or Google's. Net-net: Apple didn't even get a wrist-slap for something that nobody really cared about, and broke no laws.

For the trifecta, you make this pronouncement within a week of the FTC sanctioning Google a *record* $22.5 million for abusing US iPhone customers' privacy. So you are quite happy to turn a blind eye to actions by a firm that illegally violates customers' privacy, and trade that against a list of controversies that collectively add up to less than a bucket of spittle.

Oops! Not just your spittle. Your buddy @workaround deserves a bit of credit, for those shotgun attempts at character assassination. He was so interested in finding dirt, and you were so happy to repeat it, that you both cite an article where an utterly independent supplier to Apple stole confidential information from Apple and sold it. Apple, obviously, had no part in promoting wrongdoing of the “Bribery!!!” article that you link/cite, yet that somehow qualifies as good enough for your foul standards of anti-Apple spew. Really, why such a hurry to throw shit at the fan, when you've had years to properly catalogue their actions?

The Apple v Samsung case is about the failure of normal commercial agreements, and the courts having to step in, in a very non-Libertarian, non-free-market way, to protect citizens' interests in having a rule of law and fair competition as defined by those laws. You trivialize those concerns by spouting tired rhetoric that is more fitting for playground arguments. You could not have made your arguments look more mean-spirited and misdirected.

Take a deep breath and calm down, you're going to get spit on your screen and then you'll have to go get some wipes and nobody wants that.

I spent 5 minutes looking for negative Apple headlines in response to someone posting a very similar list about Samsung. I assure you, I'm not cataloging bribery accusations in whatever country holds the .sg top level domain. You seem really upset about this.

What we DO have is brand loyalty out the fucking wazoo. When I see someone complaining about 'copying' it absolutely means that they support Apple. That's it. In any other context, that person doesn't give a rats ass about 'copying', IP, or anything else.

And I was so enjoying your post up to this point. If you lack integrity in your personal life, I would encourage you to acknowledge that as a personal failing of your own. Those are astute points you make against absurd sweeping generalisations.

touche. But I'll be damned if I can remember an instance where in these forums I read complaints about 'copying' (that specific word) that wasn't in the context of Apple's lawsuits and wasn't by an Apple supporter. I honestly don't think that the Ars commentariat valued that issue at all except in that brand-specific context (and possibly a few old-timers who still support music copyrights, but those seem to have died out recently to the torrent of 'shill' accusations).

Honestly, my integrity aside, I'm intellectually fascinated by the tides of opinion on this place, and why Arsians seem to support diametrically opposed things when brands become involved. Because cognitive dissonance I suppose.

I think every comment thread on music copyrights or software piracy needs to point back to these discussions. I have no idea why the "ideas and art should be free for all!" and "it's ok to pirate music/software (there's no cost to the creator)" people aren't here vigorously defending Samsung.

This trial is such a waste. The Betty judge is totally in the bag for Apple. Any ruling in their favor will get crushed on appeal. The only redeeming feature of wasting the taxpayers' money on this farce is that the failed patent system is getting aired via the media to a wider audience.

Apple sold this device called the iPod — possibly before 2007 when this patent was filed — which has a menu system that lets you navigate around while music is playing, and will also indicate to you what track is playing, and some other stuff like that. Might this be considered prior art?

I've also heard rumors of some experimental software developed by Apple in the 1980s and released in 1991 that allowed multiple audio and video tracks to be played simultaneously on a device called a Macintosh, while doing other stuff like editing AUTOEXEC.BAT files and solving sliding tile puzzles. If someone can confirm this existed then perhaps this patent might be invalidated.

An obscure company called Commodore sold a computer called the Amiga which had a pre-emptive multitasking OS and could play music while doing other stuff.

Is being a lawyer as boring as reading about all these trials? Because Law and Order led me to believe it was awesome.

How much do you enjoy reading? Because that's the one thing Law and Order really skips over as it relates to the legal profession: there's a crapload of research that goes into every one of those "small pieces" they hand to you, the audience, over an hour.

This is why lawyers tend to specialize: it minimizes the amount of new research they need to do for any particular court appearance.

Here's a short list of apple's past run-ins with the law and other unethical behavior:

Apple accused by DOJ of colluding with publishers to raise book prices

Apple runs sweatshops in china to build iphones

Steve Jobs cheated his friend Woz

Steve Jobs lied to get out of paying child support,

er... but:

- Fact: Average eBook prices have fallen since Apple entered the market- Fact: Apple uses the same suppliers in China as HP, Microsoft, Dell, Toshiba and, er, Samsung- Fact: He ripped off Woz when they were both kids... but Woz became a multi-millionaire when Apple was built. Not something he'd have done himself, or even really cared about- Fact: He eventually became a decent father and took responsibility

Apple does all kind of crap which is worth calling out, but your list was petty and irrelevant to this thread or anything else remotely interesting.

The problem with this case is simple. Apple stooped low to bring it, Samsung have to stoop low to defend against it.

Neither side's case is particularly compelling. Most of Apple's claimed innovations are trivial to find prior are for, and the rest of their case is an insulting attempt to get exclusivity on minimalism. Samsung's defence is pretty much a mirror image of that claim.

Neither deserves to win. But if I have to pick a winner, I'd pick Samsung - simply because Apple's preference for competing with lawyers rather than products leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

As far as I'm concerned, they are both misusing patents to hinder competition.

Perhaps, but I don't recall any one hearing Apple was filing injunctions in response to Samsung filing any first. Seems Steve's legacy will be remembered as the anger that hobbled Apple.

While we're at it, have you EVER seen an Ars poster (other than me, heh) note that Moto yanked their G3 licensing from ChiMei, the manufacturer of Apple's original iPhone chipset, weeks after Apple's product went on sale?

Or anybody who noted that Moto canceled QualComm's right to their patents embedded in their CDMA chips, just DAYS after the Verizon iPhone?

The theory of “patent exhaustion” provides that if a chip manufacturer pays license fees so it can sell chips with a patented technology, the buyer need not pay a second time. Moto cut this off at the knees by canceling their licenses. These were obvious and direct efforts to prevent Apple from competing against Motorola, despite their pledges to license the tech on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms.

Apple negotiated these issues with Motorola, and then resorted to the courts. The courts are of course, where people petition for fair treatment; claiming that they are an element of bullying is both upside down and a repudiation of the notion of laws in the country.

Likewise, you conveniently forget the trip Jobs & Cook took to Korea, to plea for competition that did NOT involve violation of Apple's IP. By Samsung's account, no threats were made, and the lawsuits only arose after Samsung released a second batch of designs that are the subject of the present suit. I don't see how you read that as bullying in any way; if anything Samsung figured they could get away with stuff Apple didn't like, because Apple needed their screens and CPUs.

I won't claim to have enumerated all the sharp elbows that get thrown in the ball games here, but this business about Apple being the original patent bully is pure horse pucky.

This issue is more than the rounded rectangle. The faces of the tablets and phones in question look like iPads and iPhones respectively, especially to the uninitiated (not those of us here...of course). Apple-users generally have good experiences using their products in a public setting. Samsung (et. other maker) product users may not have such good experiences and probably cuss at their products more often (I have seen this often on my bus, actually)...

- Say I make a very cool, capable product that people really like to use. Form factor is part of the success, but so is function and ease of use.

- Say, also, that my competition has tried, unsuccessfully to sell a similar product but consumers, for whatever reason, didn't like the form-factor or function so their product(s) didn't really catch on.

- Say then, that my competitors then adapt their less successful products to look and feel like my successful product in order to boost sales and cut into my market,

Why shouldn't I protect the public image and public reputation of my products, user experience, and IP by going after them?

Surely there are other ways to design a tablet or other than black or white borders, rounded rectangles, metallic edges AND rows of icons. Surely Samsung (et al.) could and should find other form factors, that can compete in the tablet space without trying to look, even remotely, like an iPad...or maybe they are just too cheap or designed-challenged to try...although they did try prior to Apple and failed miserably. Microsoft showed they are trying to do break in without copying the iPad. I look forward to the Microsoft product releases so I can see some genuine competition in the table space. However, Samsung and the other manufacturers have been trying to catch some of Apple's fire by mimicry...not innovation...imo.

/Yawn

There's nothing new under the sun. Tech advances are all derivative. It's important to protect IP to some extent, but the notion that every stupid thing is patent-worthy has caused a big mess as evidenced by this case.

Apple reconfigured existing technologies in an innovative way, and has profited handsomely for doing so. They may have even beaten others to market on solving touch UI problems. This notion that Apple reigns supreme and all others scramble to copy them is not reasonable.

Apple's innovative reconfiguration was enough...apparently. Not everybody does scramble to copy that look and feel. The Microsoft Surface, for instance, the B&N Nook, the Amazon Kindle...all look and feel different from the iPad (assuming that somebody will get to actually to feel a Surface one day) so your argument does not stand well. Competitive tablets and technology can be made without cloning. Samsung, et al, really could have found ways to innovate and differentiate. They simply chose not to.

And that's where it's all just a matter of opinion, I find it amazing that anyone who has spent significant time with a variety of tablets would reach the conclusion that Samsung cloned the iPad. Similarities, yes, but similarities exist between all of them. The Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab look very similar in design, I think that supports my point more than yours.

I wish Samsung would stop selling components to Apple outright, businesses aren't often vindictive enough for my liking. It's not practical, I know, but it sure does feel good.

The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind since Samsung may have made more money on the iPhone than Android. Would it feel good if Apple dropped Samsung?

That may have been true in the recent past but with the volume of smartphones Samsung sells worldwide (about 4x what Apple sells last I saw) and the MUCH larger margins on smartphones compared to components (Ask Apple if you have any doubt) I'm sure Apple would be hurt more than Samsung should they decide to go with another supplier.